1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder in Korea.

1. The answer B, 600 square meters, which was based on the facts of the foundation, was the land under the circumstances of D, who had a domicile in the same Ri. Since then, the land was the 1,983 square meters in P, P, P, P, and P, P, P, P, P, and the land was the same as the entries in the purport of the claim. The Defendant Republic of Korea completed registration of preservation of ownership as to this land.

The land before subdivision was divided was divided into 1,408 square meters per annum (hereinafter “instant land”) on June 28, 2000. The land before subdivision became 1,408 square meters per annum (hereinafter “instant land”).

On the other hand, Defendant Korea Rail Network Authority completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in the purport of the claim on October 13, 2005 on the land of this case, on the grounds of a consultation on the land of this case as to the land of this case.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 and 3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea for the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on each of the instant land and the confirmation that each of the instant land was owned by the Plaintiff.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable in danger. Thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation even though it is possible to bring a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da82439 Decided March 26, 2004, etc.). In the instant case, it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of registration of ownership preservation against the Defendant Republic of Korea, and it cannot be deemed that there are special circumstances to seek confirmation of ownership of each of the instant land against the Defendant Republic of Korea. Therefore, the part of the claim for ownership confirmation in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The land before the plaintiff's assertion is divided shall be the land before September 1, 1946.